Re: DFSG compatibility of the "Poetic License"
Hi Ben,
I came across this discussion regarding a license I wrote for
memorability, clarity, and most of all, fun. Your argument against
using the license due to a general desire to minimise proliferation is
sound. And in this respect, the license is placed in the same category
as ALL NEW licenses, regardless of novelty. In all righteousness, may
evolution cease! God bless!
However, the detailed line by line legal attack is just as humorous as
the original poem was intended. Further arguments are rubbish, as the
license is DIRECTLY based on the BSD, MIT, and ISC, either verbatim,
or in most cases, word shifted for rhyme and rhythm.
Poetic License:
(c) <year> <copyright holders>
This work ‘as-is’ we provide.
No warranty, express or implied.
We’ve done our best,
to debug and test.
Liability for damages denied.
Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
On this notice these rights rely.
Let's start with the MIT license, shall we?:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BSD:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS''
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
Continuing with the ISC, I hardly think even lawyers have corrupted
the English languish enough that it is necessarily to declare all
possibilities and/or their converse just to articulate the concepts of
"ALL" or "NONE"? For example, "direct or indirect", "these damages or
any other damages", "this, that, or other"?:
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING
FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
The last stanza of the Poetic License again:
Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
On this notice these rights rely.
The ISC again:
Permission to use, copy, modify,
and/or distribute this software for any purpose
with or without fee
is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice
appear in all copies.
Hmm... perhaps more appropriate are accusations of plagiarism. I can
not deny guilt. I blatantly copied three licenses!
Sincerely yours, with tongue in cheek,
Alex Genaud
http://genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/
----
Re: DFSG compatibility of the "Poetic License"
Ben Finney
Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:31:04 -0700
Maximilian Gaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently discovered the Poetic License:
Which makes for interesting rhythm and a smile, but I very much doubt
its robustness as a legal instrument.
> This work ‘as-is’ we provide.
What is meant by this? Without explanation and clarification, it's
close to being a tautology.
> No warranty express or implied.
What happens where this conflicts with the very common situation where
there *is* an implied license required by the jurisdiction: does the
license still apply? Which parts apply?
> We’ve done our best,
> to debug and test.
> Liability for damages denied.
Again, what of the cases where such liability *cannot* be denied under
law? The license must make provision for that, or leave itself open to
being null in that case.
> Permission is granted hereby,
To whom, exactly? The terms need to specify and define parties.
What part does the recipient play? Passive voice may make the meter
easier to write, but it's needlessly difficult for working out what
the heck it means.
> to copy, share, and modify.
What about redistribution? Presumably that's meant to be included in
"share", but it's not clear.
What terms may the "shared" work be licensed under?
> Use as is fit,
> free or for profit.
The use of an unqualified action of "use" in a legal document about
software works is vague to the point of uselessness.
> These rights, on this notice, rely.
Is this meant to have some legal meaning? Or should we ignore it?
> <http://genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/>
What works do we know of licensed under these terms?
> I ponder using this license for my own stuff, but I'd like to hear
> some opinions from debian-legal before doing it.
Whatever its worth as a poem, as a legal instrument I can only think
it is vague waffle that is wantonly open to interpretation. That's a
fine property of poetry, but it's poisonous for a license.
License proliferation seems fun to the instigator, but it's an utter
pain for those trying to follow them and is to be avoided whenever
possible.
Please, please do not use these terms for any work. There are far more
robust, well-tested and scrutinised licenses that, after painstaking
scrutiny under diverse circumstances, are widely thought to result in
free works: please choose one of them.
Reply to: